the mesa community college program to assess student learning · november 2011 . mesa community...

The Mesa Community College Program to Assess Student Learning

Annual Report AY 2010-2011

Prepared by:

Matt Ashcraft Christina Del Rosario

Dennis Mitchell Office of Research and Planning

November 2011

Mesa Community College is part of the Maricopa County Community College District, an EEO/AA Institution

Mesa Community College 1833 W. Southern Avenue Mesa, Arizona 85202 MCC at Red Mountain 7110 East McKellips Road Mesa, Arizona 85207 Office of Research and Planning 480-461-7213 www.mesacc.edu/about/orp/

AY2010-2011 Committee Membership

Faculty Senate Student Outcomes Committee

Emi Ahn

Keith Anderson Derek Borman Peter Brown Diana Bullen

Tim Florschuetz (Co-Chair Elect) Dave Harris

Juan Marquez Sam Martinez

Betty Parisek (Co-Chair Elect) Kathleen Pollard Ly Tran-Nguyen

Ex-officio members: Matt Ashcraft (ORP)

Dennis Mitchell (ORP) Jim Mabry (VPAA)

Table of Contents

I. Introduction and Background ..................................................................................................... 1

HISTORY AND OVERVIEW OF ASSESSMENT ................................................................................................................. 1

ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE FOR ASSESSMENT ....................................................................................................... 1

GOALS AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS ................................................................................................................................. 3

II. Overall Summary of Results ........................................................................................................ 5

III. Methodology ............................................................................................................................... 7

DIRECT MEASURES OF STUDENT LEARNING ................................................................................................................ 7

DATA COLLECTION PROCEDURES ................................................................................................................................ 7

DESCRIPTION OF GENERAL EDUCATION PARTICIPANTS .............................................................................................. 8

IV. Results and Observations............................................................................................................ 9

ARTS AND HUMANITIES ASSESSMENT RESULTS .......................................................................................................... 9

CULTURAL DIVERSITY RESULTS ............................................................................................................................... 11

V. Indirect Measures of Student Learning .................................................................................... 14

GRADUATE EXIT SURVEY .......................................................................................................................................... 14

LICENSURE AND CERTIFICATION ............................................................................................................................... 15

COURSE COMPLETION ............................................................................................................................................... 18

PERSISTENCE ............................................................................................................................................................. 19

TRANSFER ................................................................................................................................................................. 19

DEVELOPMENTAL EDUCATION COURSE COMPLETION AND SUBSEQUENT SUCCESS .................................................. 20

Appendix A: Student Outcomes Committee Meeting Minutes for AY 2010-2011

Appendix B: Results Outreach Committee Materials

Appendix C: Process for Adding an Outcome

Appendix D: Learning Outcomes and Assessment Measures as of AY 2010-2011

Appendix E: Sample Assessment Week Materials for AY 2010-2011

Mesa Community College Annual Assessment Report AY 2010-2011

1

I. Introduction and Background

History and Overview of Assessment

Over the past fifteen years, Mesa Community College (MCC) has developed a comprehensive system of assessment focused on a set of common student learning outcomes. The college community uses assessment results to identify areas of strength and areas for improvement in order to develop strategies to enhance student learning. Student outcomes assessment has become a part of the college culture. The success of MCC’s assessment program is due in large part to the principles that evolved as the program developed. These principles are based upon good practice as well as lessons learned while developing and implementing the program. They have provided a sound foundation for assessment to develop and mature.

1. The assessment program is driven by college values. 2. The college makes a long-term commitment. 3. Instructional leaders understand and believe in the value of assessment. 4. Faculty lead the program and own the results. 5. Technical expertise and support are provided. 6. Learning outcomes are defined programmatically. 7. Measurement tools align with outcomes. 8. A viable research design and methodology are used. 9. Results are used by faculty to improve learning. 10. Assessment is linked to college planning.

Development of the assessment program has been a collaborative effort between faculty, staff and administration. Faculty participation has been critical to the development of the assessment program and is fundamental to administration and use of results. College administration has provided consistent support by allocating resources and providing leadership to the assessment initiative and the Office of Research and Planning (ORP) has provided the technical expertise and support needed to help design the research plan, refine the instruments, coordinate data collection and analyze the data. Over time assessment measures, data collection procedures, and the use of results have been refined. Commonly accepted student learning outcomes were defined by the faculty when the assessment program was first developed. Instruments were selected or developed by faculty, piloted and administered. The assessment tools have been reviewed by faculty and modified when appropriate after subsequent administrations. Administration of assessments shifted from voluntary student participation outside of class to a system of campus wide assessment conducted by faculty during class time. As the program to assess student learning has matured, the use of assessment results has been emphasized. Assessment results are integrated into departmental and college planning. Furthermore, college-wide assessment initiatives have been developed through the activities of the Results Outreach Committee (ROC), a sub-committee of the Faculty Student Outcomes Committee (SOC). Outcomes assessment results for academic year (AY) 2010-11 are described in this report. A complete series of annual assessment reports has been written, beginning in AY 1996-97, and provides further details about the development of the assessment program at MCC.

Organizational Structure for Assessment

A standing faculty committee, SOC is charged with making decisions and recommendations related to all aspects of student outcomes assessment at the college. The faculty committee is led by a faculty chair and co-chair who receive reassign time to lead the assessment initiative. Ex-officio members include the Vice


2

President for Academic Affairs and staff from ORP. The committee holds regular monthly meetings and schedules additional ad hoc meetings as needed. SOC meeting minutes for AY 2010-11 are shown in Appendix A. The Student Outcomes Resource Committee includes the SOC faculty chair and chair-elect and staff from ORP. The Resource Committee is responsible for all operational aspects of the student assessment program, including coordinating and providing technical assistance to the faculty clusters, and coordinating and conducting Assessment Week activities. ORP provides technical assistance related to development of assessment tools and scoring rubrics, conducts data analyses, and prepares and disseminates annual assessment reports. Interdisciplinary faculty teams, or “clusters,” plan and direct the assessment efforts for each of the outcome areas. The clusters are typically comprised of three to five faculty members who select or develop measures to directly assess the outcomes, review the assessment results, and recommend revisions to the assessment tools. ROC explores avenues for facilitating the use of assessment results by departments and faculty members. The committee promotes the use of outcomes data in relation to faculty development, pedagogy, and academic climate; encourages faculty and departments to come forth with specific outcomes-based initiatives and endeavors; and provides the mechanisms for these outcomes-based activities. Committee members worked during the year to initiate pilot projects which directly address the results of student outcomes assessment. Based on a ROC recommendation, the Vice President for Academic Affairs funds projects focused on assessment results. The ROC committee materials are included in Appendix B. The success of the assessment initiative has been dependent upon the collaboration of faculty, administration and ORP. All academic departments have been represented in developing the assessment program. SOC is a recognized Faculty Senate committee; Figure 1 on the next page depicts the program’s organizational structure. In addition, participation extends beyond the committee membership depicted in the chart. Assessment is imbedded within the college culture at the college, departmental, and individual level. There are many opportunities for participation. Faculty from both campuses and all locations have had the opportunity to volunteer to administer an assessment, attend an assessment orientation, participate in departmental planning discussions, attend an assessment dialog, serve on a committee or cluster or submit a pilot project addressing the use of results. A variety of assessment results presentations are made annually. Each fall, an all faculty meeting is held to discuss the student outcomes assessment results from the previous spring, and similar discussions occur within departments. Several departments have used information from assessment results to develop new departmental initiatives as a part of the departmental planning process. The entire college community was informed and engaged through on-going communication using a variety of media. Articles were published in employee newsletters and on the assessment web page. An informational assessment brochure was distributed to students, faculty, and staff. During Assessment Week posters and flyers were disseminated to promote awareness of assessment activities among the campus community.


3

Figure 1

Goals and Accomplishments

The MCC Student Outcomes Committee has achieved a number of significant accomplishments for the 2010-2011 academic year: Creation of two faculty clusters to review and revise the workplace skills assessment and the

information literacy tools, each with a mandate to ensure the timeliness of each tool as currently written, or to revise/revamp as necessary, as well as to ensure alignment of each tool with MCC’s current mission, vision, and strategic priorities.

Successful completion of Assessment Week 2011, with 65 faculty volunteering a total of 103 sections for testing of the Arts and Humanities and the Cultural Diversity tools.

Integration of SOC priorities and the HLC Pilot Project.

Faculty Senate Student Outcomes Committee (SOC)

Results Outreach (sub)‐Committee

(ROC)

Student Outcomes Resource Committee

Faculty Clusters

Arts and Humanities

Cultural Diversity

Information Literacy

Global Awareness

Numeracy

Problem Solving / Critical Thinking

Scientific Inquiry

Written and Oral Communication

Workplace Skills

Developmental Education


4

SOC’s future goals and plans include the following: Awarding ROC grants for the 2011-2012 year to one or more faculty participants. Hiring and training faculty for scoring of the 2011 Arts and Humanities assessment tool. Developing a scoring rubric for the Global Awareness tool. Continuing to support the HLC Pilot Project through defining and refining SOC’s role, including

committee membership recruitment from each academic unit. Developing a faculty cluster to review the current Cultural Diversity assessment tool.

Results Outreach sub-Committee Activities ROC was formed to focus efforts and ensure increased emphasis on the use of results from the student assessment program. ROC developed a call for proposals which is sent annually to all full-time faculty members. Submitted proposals are reviewed by the ROC members against a set of criteria, and recommendations for funding are forwarded to the Vice President for Academic Affairs for final approval.

Following the procedure established over the last few academic years, SOC solicited ROC proposals in fall 2010 and again in spring 2011. ROC Grants were awarded to two proposals: Online Assessment Platform for MCC’s Nursing Department and MCC Book Club. See Appendix B for ROC forms and documents.


5

II. Overall Summary of Results

The MCC Program to Assess Student Learning has historically demonstrated evidence of student learning in both general education and career and technical areas. A common set of student learning outcomes provide the foundation for assessment. The assessment process is a part of the college culture and is a collaborative effort of faculty in many disciplines. Faculty members across nearly all disciplines and campus locations participate in the college’s award-winning assessment program.

During the 15th-annual Assessment Week in spring 2011, SOC focused assessment efforts on the Arts and Humanities and Cultural Diversity assessments which were last administered in spring 2007. A brief summary of results by assessment for the most recent years can be found below.

Summary of Findings – Assessment Weeks 2009-2011

Outcome and Year Assessed Results Arts and Humanities – Assessed 2011

Significant differences were observed between completing and beginning student scores in all the following learning outcome areas: a basic knowledge of human creations an awareness that different contexts and/or world views produce

different human creations an understanding and awareness of the impact that a piece has on

the relationship and perspective of the audience an ability to evaluate human creations

Cultural Diversity – Assessed 2011

Students in the completing group: Recognized the value of diversity Supported requiring students to complete a diversity course in

order to graduate Recognized the importance of civic responsibility

Workplace Skills – Assessed 2010

The average score of the completing student group was higher than the entering student group by a statistically significant margin. The post group also scored statistically higher in all but one outcome area (interpersonal communication). Overall, students’ scores ranked highest in:

1. technology literacy 2. ethics 3. personal and professional responsibility

For the past several years, teamwork and organization scores ranked lowest compared to the other outcome areas.

Problem Solving – Assessed 2009

The average score was significantly higher for the completing student group overall and for the “deduction” sub-area of the assessment. As with past years, mean scores have been highest for the Interpretation and Evaluation of Arguments sections and lowest for Inference.


6

Summary of Findings – Assessment Weeks 2009-2011 (continued)

Overview of MCC Student Outcomes Assessment Results

Outcome 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Arts & Humanities

Cultural Diversity

Oral Communication

Written Communication

Numeracy

Scientific Inquiry

Problem Solving/Critical Thinking


Workplace Skills

Global Awareness

Significant Results

Not Assessed

No Significant Results Pilot Year or In

Development

Sample Size too Small for Pre/Post Group Analysis

Assessment Instrument Under Review/Revision

Global Awareness – Assessed 2009 (Pilot)

An item analysis of the Global Awareness Assessment results by an external consultant yielded the following highlights:

The Global Awareness pilot instrument is statistically reliable. o The instrument will likely produce consistent scores in

future administrations. o A low level of variability (2.6%) due to random

measurement error existed in individual student scores; therefore, students are likely to receive similar scores on the instrument over multiple administrations.

A majority of items (58.3%) were classified as having a “good” level of discrimination, meaning that the student more likely correctly answered a question based on subject-area knowledge than by chance. The remaining items fell into the “fair” discrimination classification, and no items were rated “poor.”

Overall, the item analysis indicates a need to change only a small number of items in order to increase instrument reliability and validity.


7

III. Methodology

Direct Measures of Student Learning

Student learning is measured by assessing knowledge in outcome areas defined by faculty. The eight general education outcome areas as determined by MCC faculty are as follows: written and oral communication problem solving/critical thinking numeracy scientific inquiry arts and humanities cultural diversity information literacy global awareness

The workplace skills defined by MCC faculty are: ethics interpersonal skills critical thinking organization team work technology literacy personal and professional responsibility

Faculty developed instruments were adopted to measure the outcomes in all but three areas (Problem solving/critical thinking, cultural diversity and workplace skills.) Problem solving/critical thinking is measured using a standardized test that aligns with the MCC outcomes. The cultural diversity assessment is adapted from a survey designed by The Diverse Democracy Project at the University of Michigan. Workplace skills are assessed using an adaptation of the SCANS/TEJAS instrument developed through a Carl Perkins grant from the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. The faculty-designed instruments were pilot tested and reviewed using classical item analysis. Faculty also evaluated the instruments for content validity. The specific outcome statements and a description of assessment tools are presented for each outcome area in the chart in Appendix D.

Data Collection Procedures

The Arts and Humanities and Cultural Diversity Assessments were administered in spring 2011. SOC intended to also administer assessments for Oral and Written Communication, but too few sections were volunteered to administer all four desired assessments. Faculty volunteers were recruited by SOC members and through department chairs. Courses with a relatively large share of beginning students or completing students were targeted for participation. Flyers were provided to help recruit volunteers. (Sample informational materials from Assessment Week 2011 are shown in Appendix F.) Sixty-five faculty members volunteered a total of 103 sections at both the Southern and Dobson and Red Mountain campuses. All assessments were administered by faculty in regular class sessions during Assessment Week, February 28 – March 4, 2011. Early in the spring semester, participating faculty members were contacted to confirm participation. Assessment materials for nearly 2,400 students were distributed to academic departments, as well as tips for faculty, student information handouts, administration directions, and posters. The student information handout contains an explanation of the assessment program, a summary of results from prior years, and information about the upcoming Assessment Week.


8

Administration of the assessment occurred during the regular classroom period. Faculty followed a standard protocol for the assessment. Students were informed that the purpose of the assessment is to measure whether education goals are being achieved in order to improve programs and student learning. Students were assured that results are not reported by student or by class but are evaluated across the college. Completed assessments, along with an Assessment Submittal form, were returned to ORP. Faculty were asked to complete the following information on the submittal form: whether they provided an incentive to students, how long it took to administer the assessment, whether they had any problems administering the assessment, and what they would suggest to improve the process. About 75% of the faculty reported they had offered an incentive to students for participating in the assessment. This feedback is used to make necessary modifications to Assessment Week processes and procedures. Description of General Education Participants From the total pool of students who took each assessment, a group of beginning (pre-group) students and a group of completing (post-group) students was selected for analysis and comparison. On average for both assessments combined, the pre-group participants had completed 10.8 credit hours compared to 48.2 credits for post-group students. Equal numbers of pre and post students were selected for comparison using a stratified random sample based upon ethnicity. In previous years, students were asked to manually write their student ID number in addition to several background questions to help determine their total earned credit hours, the distribution of their courses, and their educational intent (i.e. reason for attending MCC). Starting with Assessment Week 2010, students were instead asked to affix a barcode sticker to their assessment answer sheet. The barcode contained each student’s unique identification number and also listed each student’s name and course information. Using a barcode sticker solved problems that occurred in past administrations in which most students either did not know their own ID number or refused to bubble in their identification number due to privacy concerns. ORP can now easily match each student’s assessment response with exact demographic, credit hour, and course data. This more precise data is then used to determine eligibility for the pre and post cohorts. Table 1

Comparison of Beginning and Completing Student Groups All Assessments Combined

Pre-group Post-group

Total College (Fall 10 45th day)

Headcount (Unduplicated) 412 409 26,408 Ethnicity

White 62% 62% 60% Hispanic 19% 20% 17% Black, non-Hispanic 4% 4% 6% Am. Indian/AK Native 3% 3% 4% Asian/Pacific Islander 7% 7% 5% Other/Not Specified 4% 4% 8%

Gender Female 52% 59% 52% Male 47% 40% 47% Unknown 1% 2% 2%

Cumulative earned hours as of spring 2011 Average 10.8 48.2 N/A

Note: 11 students took both assessments.


9

IV. Results and Observations

Arts and Humanities Assessment Results

Outcomes

The Arts and Humanities outcomes defined by faculty are that students will be able to: 1. Demonstrate knowledge of human creations. 2. Demonstrate awareness that different contexts and/or world views produce different human

creations. 3. Demonstrate an understanding and awareness of the impact that a piece (artifact) has on the

relationship and perspective of the audience. 4. Demonstrate an ability to evaluate human creations.

Data Collection and Measurement

The Arts and Humanities assessment is a multi-media presentation that includes a photograph of a provocative art exhibit, a performance from “To Kill a Mockingbird,” a musical composition, and a story-telling segment. The assessment requires a 75-minute class session in which students respond to a set of questions about each of the four segments. For example, they are asked to write their immediate personal reaction, discuss what qualifies the presentation as art, and comment on the political or historical context of each segment and the perception of the audience. Comparison groups are selected based upon student intent and course-taking patterns. Beginning students (pre-group) have fewer than fifteen hours completed and indicate that they intend to complete a general education program of study. The completing cohort or post group has completed more than 30 hours, have a general education program of study planned, and have completed courses in each core curricular area. Details of student ethnicity and the average number of credit hours completed is provided in the table that follows. Table 2

Arts and Humanities Assessment Cohorts Spring 2011

Pre (n=120)

Post (n=120)

Ethnicity # % # %Caucasian-Am./White 77 64% 77 64%Hispanic 20 17% 20 17%African-Am./Black 4 7% 4 7%Native-Am./Al Native 4 7% 3 3%Asian-Am./Pacific Isl. 8 7% 9 8%Other 7 6% 7 6%Mean hours completed 8.4 48.2

The student responses are scored by a team of MCC faculty members who teach in the arts and humanities disciplines. The faculty participate in a norming session during which they review examples of the rubric, practice scoring writing samples, and discuss the evaluation criteria prior to scoring the assessments. Each student booklet is scored independently by two faculty scorers. Student identification and background information is not shared with the faculty. Student responses are rated on a scale of 1 through 5 using a faculty-developed rubric for each outcome. The scale is: 1 = response is completely undeveloped, 2 = shows a lack of understanding of the content, 3 = shows a basic understanding but is limited to a personal response, 4 = shows a basic understanding in a


10

broader view (beyond a personal view), 5 = shows a high level of understanding in a broader view and illustrates coherent integrated thinking about the work. Assessment Results

The average total score and the mean scores for each outcome were significantly higher for the post-group than the pre-group in 2011. There have been consistent differences between pre and post groups in all administrations of the Arts and Humanities assessment. Overall, scores fell within a traditional bell curve. Most students received a score of three, which indicates a basic understanding of the material. A relatively small number of responses received a score of 5, which represents an answer that shows a high level of understanding in a broader view and illustrates coherent integrated thinking about the work. Table 3

Arts and Humanities Assessment – Mean Scores by Outcome 2003 2005 2007 2011 Outcome Pre

n=88 Post n=88

Pre n=85

Post n=86

Pre n=83

Post n=83

Pre n=120

Post n=120

1. Demonstrate knowledge of human creations. 2.8 2.9 2.7 3.0* 2.8 3.0* 2.7 3.0*

2. Demonstrate an awareness that different contexts and/or world views produce different human creations

2.7 2.9* 2.7 3.1* 2.8 3.1* 2.9 3.1*

3. Demonstrate an understanding and awareness of the impact that a piece (artifact) has on the relationship and perspective of the audience.

2.7 2.9* 2.7 3.1* 2.8 3.1* 2.9 3.2*

4. Demonstrate an ability to evaluate human creations.

2.7 2.9* 2.7 3.0* 2.7 3.0* 2.8 3.1*

Overall 1=undeveloped, 3=basic understanding, 5=high level of understanding

2.7 2.9* 2.7 3.1* 2.8 3.0* 2.8 3.1*

* Significant difference


11

Cultural Diversity Results

Outcomes

Cultural Diversity Outcomes defined by the faculty cluster are that students will be able to:

1. Identify and explain diverse cultural customs, beliefs, traditions, and lifestyles. 2. Identify and explain major cultural, historical, and geographical issues that shape our perceptions

and interpretations of our world. 3. Identify and explain social forces that can effect cultural change. 4. Identify biases/assumptions/prejudices in multicultural interactions. 5. Identify ideologies, practices, and contributions that persons of diverse backgrounds bring to our

multicultural world.

Data Collection and Measurement

The diversity assessment was adapted from an instrument used by ten universities participating in the national Diverse Democracy project. The measure contains direct measures of student knowledge as well items designed to measure student attitude and behavior. The assessment is comprised of 125 multiple choice items and background questions. The assessment was administered in classes that were at least 50 minutes long. Both the beginning student cohort (pre-group) and the completing student cohort (post-group) contain 296 students. The distribution of students by ethnicity and the mean hours completed for each cohort is compared in the table below. Table 4

Cultural Diversity Assessment Cohorts Spring 2011

Pre (n=296)

Post (n=296)

Ethnicity # % # %Caucasian-Am./White 182 62% 182 62%Hispanic 62 21% 62 21%African-Am./Black 13 4% 13 4%Native-Am./Al Native 11 4% 11 4%Asian-Am./Pacific Isl. 19 6% 19 6%Other 9 3% 9 3%Mean hours completed 11.7 48.3

Assessment Results The Assessment results were categorized into the following categories:

1. Interaction: questions that relate to the type and quality of interaction between diverse groups of students and experiences at MCC.

2. Value of Diversity: questions that relate to tolerance for differences, pluralistic orientation, perspective taking and the value of diversity.

3. Democracy: questions that relate to an understanding of conflict, social obligation, civic responsibility, engagement in social action, self-efficacy for social change, and interest in social issues

4. Support for race-based initiatives and institutional involvement. 5. Knowledge: faculty designed questions and a self-assessment of cultural knowledge.


12

Interaction: The assessment includes several items regarding the amount and quality of interaction students have with diverse groups of people. Groups of questions (scales) include frequency of interaction with other racial/ethnic groups, the type of interaction with diverse groups, friendships with diverse peers and the level of discomfort with diverse groups. Students indicate the types of activities they share with a racial/ethnic group other than their own. The activities ranked by the share of post-group students who report the experience “often or very often” follows: socialized or partied (66%); dined or shared a meal (58%); studied or prepared for class (56%); shared personal feeling and problems (56%); had intellectual discussions outside of class (53%); had meaningful honest discussions about race/ethnic relations outside of class (49%); and attended events sponsored by other racial/ethnic groups (24%). Significantly more post-group students reported dining or sharing a meal, having meaningful honest discussions about race/ethnic relations outside of class, and socializing or partying with students from a different racial/ethnic group. Most students report rarely experience discomfort with people different from themselves and frequently report having a close friend of a different religion or ethnicity. However, there are no significant differences between beginning and completing students in these areas. Campus Experience: Eighty-eight percent of the completing students agreed that their experience at MCC expanded their knowledge and awareness of diverse people and cultures. Value of Diversity: Completing students are significantly more likely to agree with statements concerning the value of diversity when compared to the pre-group. Completing students agree more strongly than beginning students that contact with individuals whose background is different is valuable. There were no significant differences between the two student groups on tolerance for differences, pluralistic orientation or the perspective taking scales. Nearly all students in both comparison groups (96% of the pre group and 98% of the post group) agree strongly with the statement that “There are two sides of every issue and I try to look at both of them.” Democracy: Significant differences were noted between the pre and post groups in the scales relating to civic responsibility and self-efficacy for social change. No differences were seen between groups on scales that reflect an understanding that conflict enhances democracy, willingness to engage in social action, and social obligation. Significantly more completing students feel that it is important to pay taxes to support public services, vote in national elections, create awareness of how people affect the environment, and volunteer with community organizations. Support for race-based initiatives and institutional involvement: The scale includes several items related to actions an institution of higher education could take to help develop an understanding of diversity. Students are asked the extent to which they support these actions. Significantly more completing students agree that students should be required to take at least one cultural or ethnic diversity course in order to graduate. Knowledge: Completing students had significantly better scores on the knowledge questions, but no difference was seen between groups in students’ self-assessment of cultural knowledge. Comparisons of the areas that have shown significant differences between scales in the past three administrations of the assessment are shown in Table 5. Students in the completing (post) group have significantly higher scores on direct measures of knowledge and on the value of diversity.


13

Table 5 Cultural Diversity Assessment – Mean Scores by Scale

2005 2007 2011

Item/Scale Pre n=99

Post n=99

Pre n=100

Post n=100

Pre n=296

Post n=296

Diversity Scales Pluralistic Orientation: Self-rating on openness to challenges to own view, ability to see other’s perspectives, discuss controversial issues, work cooperatively 1=a major weakness, 3=average, 5=a major strength

4.05 4.13 3.97 4.02 4.11 4.05

Perspective Taking: Self-rating on ability to see both side of issues, and see other’s views. 1=a major weakness, 3=average, 5=a major strength

3.06 3.09 3.0 3.1 3.17 3.16

Value of diversity: Statements concerning the value of diversity 4 = Strongly agree 3=Agree somewhat 2=Disagree somewhat 1=

Strongly disagree

3.09 3.23* 3.09 3.29* 3.15 3.27*

Tolerance: Tolerance of differences in gender/sexual orientation 4 = Strongly agree 3=Agree somewhat 2=Disagree somewhat 1= Strongly disagree

3.43 3.51 3.47 3.54 3.56 3.62

Democracy Scales Social Obligation 4 = Strongly agree 3=Agree somewhat 2=Disagree somewhat 1= Strongly disagree

2.8 3.0* 2.76 2.76 2.89 2.96

Low Self-Efficacy for social change 4=Strongly agree 3=Agree somewhat 2=Disagree somewhat 1= Strongly disagree

2.2 2.0* 2.17 2.01 2.35 2.21*

Willingness to Engage in Social Action 1=Never, 2= Seldom, 3=Sometimes, 4=Often, 5=Very Often

2.59 2.62 2.3 2.6* 2.46 2.54

Knowledge Knowledge (self-assessment of cultural knowledge) 1=a major weakness, 3=average, 5=a major strength

3.65 3.73 3.6 3.9 3.74 3.69

Knowledge (faculty developed items) Percent correct

83.8% 90.7%* 88% 91%* 86% 90%*

* Significant difference


14

V. Indirect Measures of Student Learning

In addition to the direct measures of the achievement of student learning provided by evaluating the results of the assessments administered to students annually, a number of indirect measures of student learning are collected at the college. These indirect measures provide further evidence of student learning; results from several indirect measures are presented in this section.

Graduate Exit Survey Upon application for graduation, all students are asked to complete an on-line survey. Of the 2,181 students who received a degree or certificate award from MCC during AY 2010-11, a total of 1,039 submitted valid graduate exit surveys. This response rate is considerably lower than previous years, and efforts are underway to determine the cause of the problem as the survey is a requirement on the application for graduation. A relatively small number of invalid responses may be due to students entering incorrect identification numbers in the survey, or students failing to complete requirements needed to graduate after initially completing the survey. Over half of respondents (57%) indicated that they intended to transfer to another school; 31% of students planned to use their degrees for career related reasons; 8% of students planned to using their degree for personal reasons; and 4% of students did not list their intent. Students are asked the extent to which the college experience has prepared them to transfer to a four-year college or university. The mean scores and share of students who say they are “very well prepared” for transfer has remained stable over the last five years as illustrated in Table 4. Table 4

Mesa Community College Graduate Exit Survey Results

“How well prepared do you feel to transfer?” AY

2006-2007 AY

2007-2008 AY

2008-2009 AY

2009-2010 AY

2010-2011

Mean score (scale 1-4) 3.5 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6Very well prepared 59% 65% 61% 61% 60%Somewhat prepared 37% 32% 37% 36% 36%Somewhat unprepared 3% 2% 1% 2% 2%Very unprepared 1% 1% <1% <1% 1%

The responses of a subset of students whose educational goals are in a Career and Technical field are presented in Table 5. Students were asked, “How well prepared do you feel for entering the workplace?” The mean preparedness score has remained stable over the past five years. Table 5

Mesa Community College Graduate Exit Survey Results

“How well prepared do you feel for entering the workplace?” AY

2006-2007 AY

2007-2008AY

2008-2009 AY

2009-2010 AY

2010-2011

Mean Score (scale 1-4) 3.6 3.6 3.7 3.7 3.5Very well prepared 62% 69% 71% 70% 57%Somewhat prepared 34% 26% 29% 28% 39%Somewhat unprepared 3% 3% 0% 1% 4%Very unprepared 1% 1% 0% <1% 0%


15

Licensure and Certification Students in Dental Hygiene, Fire Science, Mortuary Science, Network Academy, Nursing, and Veterinary Technology programs are able to receive licensure from outside licensure bodies after their studies at MCC. Data on licensure is presented below for these programs. Dental Hygiene Dental hygiene students take a national written exam, a regional practical and written exam, and a state written jurisprudence exam. Students must pass all exams in order to obtain a license to practice. Results are obtained from the national and regional examining bodies. Table 6

Mesa Community College Dental Hygiene Program Licensure Rates AY Year Total #

Graduates Licensure

Rate 2006-07 17 100%2007-08 16 100%2008-09 16 100%2009-10 19 100%2010-11 17 94%*

*In progress: one 2011 graduate has yet to take examinations. Fire Science The MCC Fire Science program offers certification in several areas as detailed in Tables 7-8. The Fire-Fighter I and II Certification and the Hazardous Materials First Responder are both granted by the Arizona State Fire Marshall’s Office. The actual success rate of attainment of the certificates may be underestimated because only the initial attempt at passage is reported back to the college. Students have three chances to pass the certification. Table 7

Fire Science Licensing Agencies License/Certification Agency

TRT Class City of Phoenix Certificate State Fire Marshal

Haz-Mat Tech Class

City of Phoenix/IFSAC combined State Fire Marshal IAFS - Department of Energy IAFS - Department of Justice

Candidate Physical Agility Test (CPAT) International Association of Firefighters International Fire Chiefs Association

Hazardous Materials/First Responder (FSC 105) State Fire Marshal Fire Operations (FSC 102) State Fire Marshal

Wildland Firefighter (FSC 110) Arizona State Land Department


16

Table 8 Mesa Community College - Fire Science Passage Rates

Enrolled Passed % Fall 2007 Hazardous Materials/First Responder (FSC 105) 73 65 89% Candidate Physical Agility Test 225 199 88% Wildland Firefighter (FSC 110) 13 12 92% Fire Department Operations (FSC 102) 19 16 84% Spring 2008 Hazardous Materials/First Responder (FSC 105) 62 54 87% Candidate Physical Agility Test (CPAT) 268 246 92% Wildland Firefighter (FSC 110) 13 13 100%Fire Department Operations (FSC 102) 10 10 100% Fall 2008 Wildland Firefighter (FSC 110) 23 23 100%Fire Department Operations (FSC 102) 16 16 100%Hazardous Materials/First Responder (FSC105) 79 79 100%Candidate Physical Ability Test 107 96 90% Spring 2009 Wildland Firefighter (FSC 110) 15 15 100%Fire Department Operations (FSC 102) 26 26 100%Hazardous Materials/First Responder (FSC105) 82 79 96% Candidate Physical Ability Test 65 58 89%

Mortuary Science The students in the Mortuary Science program must take the National Board Examination (NBE) to graduate. Most states accept the scores on the NBE in lieu of having their own state exam. The National Board Exam is administered by the International Conference of Funeral Service Examining Boards. Licensure is on a state by state basis. There are two components of the NBE, Funeral Service Arts and Funeral Service Science. In 2008, the International Conference of Funeral Service Examining Boards began to report the pass rate of the two components separately. The statistics reported in Table 9 reflects NBE passage rates before the exam was broken down into components. Table 10 reflects the new manner in which scores are reports. According to the Mortuary Science program director, almost all graduates eventually pass the exam and get licensed. Due to addition state licensure requires beyond the NBE such as internships, students may not receive state licensure for several years after graduation from the Mortuary Science program. About one-third of students in the program are from out-of-state. Table 9

Mesa Community College Mortuary Science Examinations

# Graduates Passed licensure exam

National Pass Rate

Licensed

1999-00 22 20 91% 82% 20 2000-01 14 13 93% 86% 11 2001-02 17 17 100% 85% 16 2002-03 21 19 95% 84% 15 2003-04 29 26 90% 67% 17 2004-05 16 12 75% 74% 16 2005-06 25 22 88% 72% 19 2006-07 21 14 67% 70% Not Reported


17

Table 10 Mesa Community College

Mortuary Science National Board Examinations Graduates Funeral Service Arts Funeral Service Science

# # Pass % # Pass % 2007-08 22 23 18 78% 25 19 76% 2008-09 13 16 12 75% 14 9 64% 2009-10 27 27 24 89% 26 21 81% 2010-11 In Progress – Graduates have until Dec. 31, 2011 to take the national board exams. Network Academy The Network Academy offers certification pathways in Network Administration, Network Security, Programming, Database Technologies, Fiber Optics, Information Assurance, Home Technology Integrator and Workplace Skills. Training formats include fast tracks, traditional semesters, distance learning, and internet deliveries. Network Academy students earn industry certification after completion of the program; however, there is not a formal mechanism for reporting certifications back to the program. Nursing Nursing students who complete a four semester curriculum and receive the Associate of Applied Science degree are eligible to take an exam to become licensed through the National Council of State Boards of Nursing Examination for Nursing (NCLEX RN) licensure exam; pass rates are detailed in Table 11 below. Table 11

Mesa Community College Nursing Program NCLEX RN Examination

Total # Graduates

# Graduates Completing NCLEX RN

NCLEX RN Pass Rate

Spring 2005 75 74 92%Fall 2005 71 69 94%

Spring 2006 58 58 95%Fall 2006 38 36 89%

Spring 2007 75 75 92%Fall 2007 50 47 98%

Spring 2008 106 106 97%Fall 2008 105 105 96%

Spring 2009 93 93 97%Fall 2009 50 50 98%

Spring 2010 S&D site

98 98 100%

Spring 2010 Boswell site

46 45 100%


18

Veterinary Technology Graduates of the MCC Veterinary Technology Program are required to complete two semesters of prerequisite coursework in order to qualify to formally apply for admission to the Program proper. After a selective admission process, the Program proper consists of a five-semester curriculum leading to the Associate of Applied Science in Veterinary Technology/Animal Health. Graduates are immediately eligible to “sit” for the Veterinary Technician National Examination (VTNE) and the Arizona state Veterinary Technician certification examination. The VTNE is administered by the Professional Examination Service, and the state certification examination is administered by the Arizona State Veterinary Medical Examining Board. Upon passing both the VTNE and the state certification examination, the successful candidate is granted certification as a Certified Veterinary Technician by the state of Arizona. Table 12

Mesa Community College Veterinary Technology Board Exam Pass Rates

Graduates % Passed State Exam % Passed National Exam 2005-06 4 100% 100% 2006-07 4 50% 50% 2007-08 5 100% 100% 2008-09 4 100% 100% 2009-10 8 100% 100% Fall 2010 4 100% 100% Spring 2011 4 In Progress In Progress Course Completion

Data about course completion is provided for fall semesters in Table 13. The percentages of successful/unsuccessful students completing a course and those withdrawing from a course have remained relatively stable.

Table 13 Mesa Community College - Course Completion

Successful (A, B, C, P)

Unsuccessful (D, F, Z)

Completer Sub-total

Withdrew (W,Y)

Fall 2000 69% 8% 77% 23% Fall 2001 69% 8% 77% 23% Fall 2002 71% 8% 79% 21% Fall 2003 71% 8% 79% 21% Fall 2004 71% 8% 78% 22% Fall 2005 69% 8% 77% 23% Fall 2006 68% 8% 76% 24% Fall 2007 68% 8% 77% 23% Fall 2008 70% 9% 78% 22% Fall 2009 70% 9% 79% 21% Fall 2010 69% 9% 78% 22%


19

Persistence Cohorts of new full time students were followed for two semesters to track their enrollment in the college. Students are further grouped based upon what they declared as their intent at the time of registration. The tables below show the overall persistence of new full time students who started attending MCC in fall 2008 and fall 2009. Table 14

Mesa Community College New Full Time Student Persistence

Enrolled Fall 2009

Remained Spring 2010

Remaining Fall 2010

Full time total new students 2,287 (100%) 2,075 (91%) 1,512 (66%)Full time transfer students 1,120 (100%) 1,003 (90%) 729 (65%)Full time career students 813 (100%) 753 (93%) 542 (67%)

Table 15

Mesa Community College New Full Time Student Persistence

Enrolled Fall 2008

Remained Spring 2009

Remaining Fall 2009

Full time total new students 1,775 (100%) 1,595 (90%) 1,212 (70%)Full time transfer students 882 (100%) 800 (91%) 602 (69%)Full time career students 638 (100%) 573 (91%) 439 (70%)

Transfer The number of students with MCC transfer credits enrolled in an Arizona university and the number of degree recipients with MCC transfer credits are described in the following tables. As of the publication date of this report, 2010 data from the University of Arizona was unavailable; therefore, tables 16 and 17 remain unchanged from the previous assessment report. Table 16

Mesa Community College Undergraduate Enrollment of Students with MCC

Transfer Credits at Arizona Universities 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Arizona State University 8,379 8,767 8,716 8,601 8,195 8,576 8,972

Northern Arizona State University

773 772 789 854 943 967 1,083

University of Arizona 656 638 552 552 549 624 668 Total 9,808 10,177 10,057 10,007 9,687 10,167 10,723

Table 17 Mesa Community College

Students with MCC Transfer Credits Receiving Undergraduate Degrees at Arizona Universities

2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009

Arizona State University 2,538 2,891 2,819 2,824 2,629 2,839Northern Arizona State University 232 262 264 255 283 310University of Arizona 123 163 104 130 149 196Total 2,859 2,893 3,316 3,187 3,061 3,345

Source: Assist Data Warehouse


20

Developmental Education Course Completion and Subsequent Success The overall course completion for developmental reading, English and math students is detailed in the table that follows. Withdrawal rates in developmental courses have decreased each fall semester since 2005. Table 18

Mesa Community College Developmental Education Course Completion

Successful (A, B, C, P)

Unsuccessful (D, F, Z)

Completer Sub-total

Withdrew (W,Y)

Fall 2004 52% 15% 67% 33% Fall 2005 48% 16% 64% 36% Fall 2006 51% 14% 65% 35% Fall 2007 53% 14% 67% 33% Fall 2008 57% 13% 70% 30% Fall 2009 59% 14% 73% 27% Fall 2010 61% 14% 75% 25%

Of students who were successful in a developmental course, performance in subsequent 100 level or higher courses in the following year is described in Table 19. The subsequent success rate for the fall 2009 developmental student cohort is the highest success rate in this seven-year trend. Table 19

Mesa Community College Developmental Education students

Success in a subsequent 100 level or Above Course

Successful in any 100+ level

subsequent course

Unsuccessful in all subsequent

courses

Withdrew from all subsequent

courses

Did not enroll in subsequent 100+

level course

Fall 2003 followed through Fall 2004 73% 4% 7% 16%







Appendix A

Student Outcomes Committee Meeting Minutes AY 2010-2011

Appendix A: Mesa Community College - Student Outcomes Committee Meeting Minutes

SOC Meeting Minutes Sept. 9, 2010 – 3:00‐4:30 p.m., CTL Conference Room

In Attendance: Emi Ahn, Derek Borman, Tim Florschuetz, Juan Marquez, Betty Parisek, Ly Tran‐Nguyen, Matt Ashcraft (ORP), Dennis Mitchell (ORP). Review of student learning outcomes: To familiarize new members and refresh returning members with the purpose of SOC, Matt gave a brief history of SOC and student learning outcomes assessment at MCC. The origins of the SOC and the implementation of assessing student outcomes at the college level began during the early ‘90s. It has always had a large focus on accreditation, which requires the college to demonstrate student learning. MCC faculty developed the outcomes and many of the assessments. Derek said from his experience that the student learning outcomes are what an MCC student should walk away with—what MCC is all about. Discussion of chair: Since no SOC chair was elected last year, Betty was asked to call the first meeting and felt that some members were looking to her to be the next chair. She voiced concerns about taking on the role of chair because of her newness to the committee (having only served for one year) and the steep learning curve the committee requires. She said she only wants to become chair if she can do the job well. As chair, she would want to ensure the committee continues to progress in terms of reviewing assessment measures so that SOC doesn’t get stuck in a rut and have difficulty moving forward. She mentioned that she is prepared for the time commitment of chair and is open to a co‐chair scenario. Several members of the committee voiced their support of Betty as chair. Tim and Ly indicated that Betty could rely on them for support throughout the year. After a discussion of the possibility of splitting the reassigned time of the chair among two co‐chairs, Tim said that he could fit that amount of reassigned time into his faculty load. The committee nominated Betty and Tim to serve as co‐chairs and decided to hold an official election to be handled by ORP in the week following the meeting. Review of outcome instruments: Tim discussed some issues with developmental education at MCC and the possibility of the committee looking at developmental education outcomes in the future. Last year, Tim started the process of reviewing the information literacy assessment and came to a roadblock when the committee’s discussion about the relationship of information literacy and technology literacy stalled. Derek suggested the committee talk to faculty outside of SOC about technology literacy to field opinions on whether or not it should be a new outcome or combined with a current outcome. Juan asked the committee what the impact of adding a new outcome would be. Matt then described the process of adding a new outcome involving the creation of a faculty cluster, creation of the instrument, and piloting the instrument. If information literacy and technology literacy were combined into a single assessment, Tim asked what would happen if a student passed the information literacy portion of an assessment but failed the technology literacy portion. The committee decided to review and discuss the information literacy and workplace skills assessments during the next meeting.

SOC Meeting Minutes Oct. 14, 2010 – 3:00‐4:30 p.m., CTL Conference Room

In Attendance: Emi Ahn, Derek Borman, Tim Florschuetz (Co‐Chair), Juan Marquez, Betty Parisek (Co‐Chair), Dennis Mitchell (ORP). Accreditation Pilot Project: ‐ Betty and Tim informed the committee that MCC has been selected by the Higher Learning Commission to participate in a pilot program regarding a new accreditation format. Part of the pilot will be to assess assessment; it will involve continuous evaluation of assessment instead of one period at a time like in the past.


Betty said they don't know much right now, but think the college is going to jump on the train ready or not; it will be a very labor intensive process, but it should produce great benefits to the campus. Tim mentioned he thinks MCC was the only community college in our district invited because the assessment program won national awards. Faculty Survey Results: The committee discussed the results of the survey SOC sent to faculty in spring 2010 regarding the assessment program; SOC decided to conduct the survey in order to learn faculty perceptions of student outcomes assessment at MCC. Only about 53% of faculty said they were moderately or extremely familiar with student outcomes at the college. Betty said that as SOC goes through the new HLC pilot program, these may be the types of projects the committee will be working on to improve assessment. Tim said the survey results show that faculty listed problem solving/critical thinking, communication and information literacy as the most important outcomes. Review of Workplace Skills Assessment Instrument: The committee discussed reviewing the current workplace skills assessment instrument. Tim brought up a couple issues he saw with the instrument: some of the true and false questions on the assessment have multiple answers, and some of the language regarding technology is now very archaic compared to when the instrument was designed. He said that this cluster will need around five experts in the content areas to revise the instrument. Betty said the committee will need a cluster of people to review the instrument and make recommendation of changes to be made, and she asked what departments should be recruited from. Dave recommended the committee recruit at a CTE Council meeting; the council meets regularly and includes the occupational program directors. Betty will contact Sally Kroelinger to get on the agenda of the next CTE meeting. Juan said some items in the instrument are related to communication, and that field is not represented on the CTE Council. Keith said that a faculty teaching technical writing may be good to have on the cluster. Diane Bullen asked if the committee could assess both CTE and general education students with the workplace skills assessment. The committee said this could be possible. Review of Information Literacy Assessment Instrument: Tim said that the information literacy instrument is outdated and previous cluster members agree that it needs to be updated. He also mentioned that his research found that there is a difference between information literacy and technology literacy. He showed the committee the book Assessing Critical Skills by Jon Mueller as well as other online examples of information literacy assessments. Tim will take the lead on the information literacy cluster. He has 2‐3 librarians interested in serving but is having difficulty recruiting English faculty. Miscellaneous topics: The committee briefly discussed the possibility of using computer‐based assessment instruments. Betty said MCC already does what HLC wants us to do in regards to assessment and continual improvement. Dave mentioned he feels there should be more representation from different departments on the committee.


SOC Meeting Minutes Nov. 4, 2010 – 3:00‐4:30 p.m., AS196

In Attendance: Emi Ahn, Tim Florschuetz (Co‐Chair), Juan Marquez, Sam Martinez, Ly Tran‐Nguyen, Betty Parisek (Co‐Chair), Jim Mabry (VPAA), Matt Ashcraft (ORP), Dennis Mitchell (ORP). Updates on Instrument Review Clusters: Tim told the committee that neither of the two assessment instruments under review, workplace skills and information literacy, will be ready for spring 2011 administration. Betty announced that she was able to form a cluster for the workplace skills instrument review with the following members: Sally Kroelinger, Elliot Cherner, Glenna Bayer, Stan Kikkert, and Evonne Bowling. Betty will attend their first meeting on Nov. 18 to provide direction and instructions laid out by Matt in ORP. Tim told the committee that he was having trouble getting people to join the information literacy review cluster. He has not yet had the chance to bring it up at an English department meeting, but hopes to organize the cluster and have the first meeting before the end of the semester. Betty said she hopes the clusters can put something together in the spring, report to SOC and the Faculty Senate in the fall, and pilot the revised instruments in spring 2012. Developmental Education Update: Tim gave the committee an update on developmental education assessment. The developmental education committee decided that developmental education assessment would fall under their purview and relieved SOC of overseeing developmental education assessment for the college. Discussion of Assessment Week 2011: Betty told the committee that it is time to decide what assessments to administer in spring 2011. The committee must decide on how many instruments to assess and then start recruiting. Betty and Tim said they discussed assessing some of the instruments that have not been given since 2007: arts and humanities, oral communication, diversity, and writing. Derek asked which instruments of those four are questionable or need updated. Tim said he thinks arts and humanities would be good to administer; scoring humanities and writing instruments cost more, so maybe from a cost perspective they should not be run together. Ly said she thinks it is time to administer all four of those assessments if they haven’t been assessed since 2007. The committee decided to administer all four assessments discussed. ORP will work up recruitment numbers and distribute goals and recruitment materials to the committee as soon as possible. Committee members also agreed that the oral communication assessment would be the one to drop if recruitment was low. Derek volunteered to update the assessment week poster. Part of the online assessment orientation for faculty was played for committee members interested in using it to help their recruitment efforts.

SOC Meeting Minutes Dec. 9, 2010 – 3:00‐4:30 p.m., CTL Conference Room

In Attendance: Emi Ahn, Brian Dille (MCC HLC team), Tim Florschuetz (Co‐Chair), Juan Marquez, Sam Martinez, Ly Tran‐Nguyen,Betty Parisek (Co‐Chair), Matt Ashcraft (ORP), Dennis Mitchell (ORP). Assessment Week a) Recruitment Update Dennis gave a brief update on faculty volunteer recruitment for Assessment Week; recruitment, especially for post sections, is low. Several major departments have not turned in any volunteers. Betty and Tim will follow up with the missing departments.


b) Poster The Assessment Week 2011 poster was distributed to the committee to hang in departments around campus. SOC member Derek Borman created the poster. It will be distributed to campus departments to hang through Assessment Week. c) Cluster Updates Betty said that the Workplace Skills cluster started meeting last month and have divided the outcomes and questions amongst cluster members. They are also planning on a survey of employers to see if employer values align with the workplace outcomes. Tim said that the Information Literacy cluster is meeting on Tuesday. In his research, he discovered that MCC offers an IFS101 information literacy course, and it addresses different levels of literacy. He said that the outcomes for information literacy may be out of date and wants to try to construct a computer‐driven assessment. HLC Assessment Academy Update Matt told the committee that MCC has been asked by the Higher Learning Commission (HLC) to participate in a pilot project. The HLC is changing the manner in which institutions will receive continued accreditation. The committee discussed a handout on the HLC’s proposed timeline for the pilot project.

SOC Meeting Minutes Jan. 27, 2011 – 3:00‐4:30 p.m., CTL Conference Room

In Attendance: Emi Ahn, Keith Anderson, Tim Florschuetz (Co‐Chair), Juan Marquez, Sam Martinez, Ly Tran‐Nguyen,Betty Parisek (Co‐Chair), Matt Ashcraft (ORP), Dennis Mitchell (ORP). Assessment Week a) Fine Tuning The committee discussed which of the four previously chosen assessments (Arts and Humanities, Cultural Diversity, Oral Communication, and Writing) to administer due to low recruitment of post sections. There will be enough sections to administer two, possibly three, assessments. Committee members discussed the pros/cons of each of the four assessments and chose to administer the Arts and Humanities and Cultural Diversity assessments. A third assessment may be chosen if last‐minute recruitment yields many additional sections. b) Distribution Logistics ORP will handle the communication with faculty and distribution of materials to departments. Reminder emails will be sent in the first week of February and materials should be delivered to departments by mid‐February. Faculty will be asked to administer the assessment during Feb. 28 – March 4 and return materials to ORP by March 11. HLC Assessment Academy Matt discussed the HLC project: the lead project that came out was the need to develop a new overall assessment framework at MCC. It’s a very ambitious project, and that is what the HLC is wanting in some respects. The group that met felt that the CTE proposal could be incorporated into the chosen proposal. The team that met will get the collaborators together to put proposal to cabinet… assessment academy will be a team of 5‐7 mostly faculty to work on turning that project into an actual timeline with tasks and communication…beginning to set up the next three years of the projects. Betty said that SOC will be an integral part of the process. The committee discussed SOC’s involvement in the project as leverage to increase faculty participation on the committee.


SOC Meeting Minutes March 10, 2011 – 3:00‐4:30 p.m., CTL Conference Room

In Attendance: Derek Borman, Brian Dille (MCC HLC Team), Tim Florschuetz (Co‐Chair), Juan Marquez, Sam Martinez, Betty Parisek (Co‐Chair), Matt Ashcraft (ORP), Dennis Mitchell (ORP). Assessment Week Review a) Update Dennis gave a brief update on Assessment Week administration: Outcomes assessment:

Assessment: 65 faculty volunteers with 103 sections

Email notices to faculty on Feb. 4th and 17th – distribution was completed the morning of the 17th

Some confusion as to when to administer and return (faculty suggested including a reprint of email in packets for additions reference for faculty missing the email).

One faculty refused to administer the AH assessment due to the technology involved

One faculty reported problems with AH PowerPoint, but seems to be an isolated incident.

As of today, 72 packets have been returned (deadline is tomorrow). o Will send out reminder and thank you email early next week to faculty

Usually, processing and analysis will occur over the summer with a report in the fall

Aim to have summary of faculty submission form/comments by the last SOC meeting CCSSE

78 of 98 sections have returned the survey o A few faculty indicated too little time to administer and returned uncompleted

Surveys will be sent back to CCSSE for processing and analysis Nearly 5,000 students enrolled in classes participating in either an assessment or CCSSE. b) Bar codes/Student senate Matt told the committee that Student Life Coordinator Meredith Warner came to him with a copy of the diversity assessment and complaints from a student. The student took issue with the use of the name and barcode sticker on the cultural diversity assessment and said that they would not truthfully answer the survey questions without anonymity. Matt discussed the reason for the use of barcodes with Meredith, stating that ORP abides by research ethics so that individual student assessment data is never reported. Tim and Betty have been asked to attend student senate and will meet with Meredith to discuss the issue prior to student senate. In his conversations with Meredith thus far, Tim said that the barcode has not come up as much as the subject matter of the diversity assessment. Juan asked if the purpose of the assessment is to actually have students accept diversity or just to understand diversity issues. The committee looked at the diversity outcomes and compared the outcomes statements with the questions on the instrument. Dennis pointed out the instructions of the assessment give students the option to skip questions if they are uncomfortable. Betty said that this is a good opportunity to evaluate the appropriateness of the tool. The committee discussed that some of the items on the assessment came across as personal values statements due to the use of “I” in some of the statements. Betty asked if SOC could just modify some of the questions to address this issue, but Tim said that they’d have to follow the full process of changing an assessment. Derek said the problem with turning the questions into third‐person questions may make them softball questions. HLC Update a) HLC team visit Brain provided SOC with an update of the MCC HLC team’s recent trip to Chicago: The team consists of Matt Ashcraft, Brian Dille, Tim Florschuetz, Craig Jacobsen, Jacquelyn Ormiston, Roger Yohe, and Meredith Warner. The team set up a storyboard of the details and is in the process of transforming that cloud of thought into information they can share with the rest of the college. The project the team went with is still the project they came back with. A problem is the inability to translate published outcomes into actual curricular change. He said that this is a


mechanism that if we can get enough buy‐in we can change that and see some impact from assessments. Instead of using a “closing the loop: analogy, the team came up a “cycle” concept. b) SOC’s Role in the Process Brian told the committee that one item the team discussed was a shift in the role SOC. Brian’s perception of SOC is that the committee’s primary role is to shepherd the student outcomes process. The team would like to have an added role of SOC to train other programs and departments around the college on how to use assessment results. He said that this will take a lot of training and will be a different mindset for many people, as the process of using outcomes results to drive strategic planning is much different than planning driven by FTSE, for example. Brian said he will harangue the departments to send more representation to SOC. Tim said that one of the benefits of this project will be more awareness for SOC. Matt said that the approach will need to be avoid giving departments an ultimatum, and will need to focus on achieving results through collaboration. Betty said that there is not yet a definitive decision in the role SOC will play in this HLC project, but asked for committee input. She said there is great potential for SOC to do great things with this project. Juan asked how the occupational programs fall into this new cycle; Brian responded that the improvement processes the MCC HLC team recommends may be modeled on much of what the occupational programs have done regarding program review and responding to student needs. SOC Chair for Next Year The committee discussed the need for SOC chair(s) for the next year. Matt said that the chair may need to serve for a three‐year term to align with the HLC project timeline. Brian said that SOC can have new chairs each year, but the new chair will need to stay updated with the project. Derek said that the three year chair term is great in theory, but in practice it is a long time. Tim said that the people on the MCC HLC team have made a three‐year commitment to travel to Chicago at least once a year. Juan said he liked the chair and co‐chair concept. Matt suggested the need for SOC to determine chairs by the next meeting. Betty indicated she is dedicated to SOC. Tim said he may be willing to give up a class next fall if needed. ORP will send out information regarding chair nominations and elections following established SOC guidelines. Matt said that one thing they have to get across is that this project becomes what the self‐study project would have been. This directly ties to accreditation and can be used to encourage more faculty members to participate in SOC.

SOC Meeting Minutes April 14, 2011 – 3:00‐4:30 p.m., CTL Conference Room

In Attendance Matt Ashcraft (ORP), Derek Borman, Tim Florschuetz (Co‐Chair), Betty Parisek (Co‐Chair), Ly Tran‐Nguyen Diversity Assessment Report & Discussion Tim and Betty attended a student government senate meeting to discuss a student complaint concerning the cultural diversity assessment. They gave the student senate an overview of SOC and informed them that this assessment instrument will be revised. Guidelines for Administering Classroom Assessments/Faculty Feedback A faculty member allowed student who made the complaint to take the assessment instrument out of the classroom. Betty said that the committee can’t be sure if faculty are reading the instructions and guidelines to students. Matt said that the committee might consider revamping the faculty orientation to assessment week. Scoring Arts & Humanities Spring 2011 Assessment


Tim informed the committee that he will recruit faculty to score the arts and humanities assessment and complete the scoring over the summer. Call for Chair‐Elect Nominations Since both Tim and Betty served as chair‐elects this year, Betty will take over as SOC Chair for AY2011‐12. Tim nominated himself for the position of chair‐elect for AY2011‐12. No other nominations were made. ORP will send out ballots. HLC Pathways Project Update Tim will serve on the HLC project team. He said that this project may change some of the core functions of the SOC. Matt provided an overview of the project.

SOC Meeting Minutes May 05, 2011 – 3:00‐4:30 p.m., CTL Conference Room

In Attendance Emi Ahn, Brian Dille, Tim Florschuetz (Co‐Chair), Dave Harris, Stan Kikkert, Sam Martinez, Juan Marquez, Dennis Mitchell (ORP), Betty Parisek (Co‐Chair), Ly Tran‐Nguyen Assessment Scoring Tim reported that a group of faculty completed the scoring rubric for the pilot of the global awareness assessment. Brian will lead a faculty group to score these assessments this summer. Tim will recruit faculty to score the arts and humanities assessment and also complete the scoring over the summer. Clusters Information Literacy Cluster: Tim informed the committee of his research on new information literacy outcomes. He recommended useing outcomes developed by the American Library Association. Workplace Skills Cluster: Stan Kikkert updated the committee on the work of the workplace skills cluster. The cluster recommended adding a workplace awareness outcome to the current set of workplace skills outcomes. Committee members were unsure if this required the approval of the faculty senate. Once the final set of outcomes is determined, the cluster will recommend a revised or new instrument. Stan said he would like to increase the size of the cluster for next year. HLC Pilot Project Presentation Brian gave a general overview of the HLC Pathways Project. He said that SOC may be able to help departments create needs analyses. Derek wondered if the level of expertise needed for this would require a faculty trained in a research‐based field, rather than a SOC member who may just have a periphery understanding of research issues. Brian said that they are evaluating several options, including hiring an external consultant or using MIL alumni. Continued SOC Recruitment Tim asked SOC members to talk to colleagues to recruit new members. He emphasized recruiting from new departments with no current representation on the SOC. He also said that they plan to start recruiting for assessment volunteers earlier next year, and Ly mentioned this would help reach adjunct faculty at early all‐department meetings. Dave asked if the faculty senate could require representation on the committee from each department, and Tim said they would try to get on the senate agenda.

Appendix B

Results Outreach Committee Materials

Appendix B: Mesa Community College – Results Outreach Committee Materials

ROC

The Results Outreach Committee

Designed to help teams of faculty or departments use the

student outcomes assessment results

ROC Mission

Provide a mechanism and resources to support faculty and/or departments in developing outcomes-based instructional initiatives or projects directly linked to assessment results data.

ROC Purpose

Promote the use of outcomes data in relation to faculty development, pedagogy, and academic climate;

Encourage and stimulate faculty, departments, interdisciplinary teams to develop specific outcomes-based initiatives or projects based on assessment data;

Provide the mechanisms and/or resources for these outcomes-based initiatives

MCC’s Gen Ed Outcomes are: MCC’s Workplace Skills are:

Written and Oral Communication Ethics

Problem Solving/Critical Thinking Interpersonal Skills

Numeracy Critical thinking

Arts & Humanities Organization

Scientific Inquiry Teamwork

Information Literacy Technology Literacy

Cultural Diversity Personal and Professional Responsibility

Global Awareness


Results Outreach Committee Call for Proposals

The Results Outreach Committee (ROC) is a sub-committee of MCC’s Student Outcomes Committee (SOC). Its mission is to provide a mechanism and the resources to support faculty and/or departments in developing outcomes-based initiatives directly linked to assessment results data.

ROC Call for Proposals The Results Outreach Committee (ROC) is seeking proposals for faculty projects to be developed during summer and completed during the following academic year. Proposals are for instructional initiatives or projects based on MCC’s outcomes assessment results. Preference will be given to proposals that involve groups of faculty or entire departments and demonstrate a long-term benefit to students and the academic climate. Interdisciplinary teams are encouraged. Compensation will depend upon the nature of the project and might include grants, resources or support, stipends, expenditures, equipment, or recognition. Funding for past proposals have ranged from $1,500-7,000 for teams of 3-10 participants. Proposals will be reviewed by an ad hoc faculty committee comprised of SOC and ROC members.

Proposals should: 1. Focus on an instructional initiatives based on college-wide outcomes assessment results. 2. Benefit students, programs, and departments. Preference will be given to proposals that involve groups of faculty or entire departments. Interdisciplinary teams are encouraged.

Assessment Background Information Several problem solving/critical thinking themes have emerged from student outcomes assessment over the past years:

Students have difficulty with recognizing the opposing viewpoint and expanding their personal perspective to adopt a broader view.

Students need to be further challenged in their ability to apply knowledge, draw valid conclusions and judge the validity of inferences.

Strong preference will be given to 2011 ROC grant proposals that address one of these or related problem-solving/critical-thinking themes identified in MCC's Assessment Week results. This report can be accessed at: http://www.mesacc.edu/about/orp/assessment. You may also obtain a complete Annual Report of assessment data by contacting the Office of Research and Planning at 461-7213.

Submit your proposal: Project ideas might include: - Sponsoring workshops, speakers, or a scholarly event on campus; engaging faculty in peer mentoring on outcomes assessment and using results; forming a faculty learning community addressing a given outcome result; creating a service learning activity to improve student outcomes performance; or designing new, interdisciplinary approaches to instruction that are outcomes centered. Submission forms, samples of projects funded in the past, project reports and information about the Results Outcome Committee are located at: http://www.mesacc.edu/about/orp/roc.html

SUBMISSION DEADLINE IS 3 PM Wednesday May 4, 2011 Recipients will be notified by Monday May 9, 2011

Participants will be expected to report out on their project annually. Proposals must be less than three pages. Submit a word document through intercampus mail AND as an email attachment to the current SOC Chairs (or complete the online submittal form): Betty Parisek in the Nursing Department or Tim Florschuetz in the English Department. For further information contact: Betty Parisek, SOC Co-Chair (461-7081, [email protected]) or Tim Florschuetz, SOC Co-Chair (461-7515, [email protected]).


Results Outreach Committee ROC Proposal

ROC Project Title

Name(s) and Department

Work Phone Number(s)

Abstract Write a concise overview describing the project, timeline, and intended outcome (120 word limit). Intended Outcome of Project Explain how the project will benefit: 1) students, 2) the college-wide outcomes assessment endeavor, and 3) the educational climate of the college. Timeline Describe start/finish dates and schedule of activities. Delineate these by Summer I, Summer II, and/or Fall 2006. If working as a group, state the primary responsibility of each team member.

Compensation Needs Provide a detailed budget including resources and/or expenses needed in order to complete the project. Be specific and include a rationale for each. Proposal expenses may be accepted as is or with noted modifications. Indicate if you are willing to accept partial awards. Dissemination of Completed Project

Participants will be expected to report out on their project annually. Proposals must be less than three pages. Submit a word document through intercampus mail AND as an email attachment to the current SOC Chairs (or complete the online submittal form): Betty Parisek in the Nursing Department or Tim Florschuetz in the English Department. For further information contact: Betty Parisek, SOC Co-Chair (461-7081, [email protected]) or Tim Florschuetz, SOC Co-Chair (461-7515, [email protected]).

Appendix C

Process for Adding an Outcome

Appendix C: Process for Adding an Outcome

Process for Modifying/Adding/Deleting College-Wide Outcome

A. Modifying an outcome/measure

1. A motion is made and a rationale provided by a residential faculty to modify a college-wide outcome. The motion must be seconded by another SOC member to initiate the process.

2. Upon a consensus of SOC members for this need, a faculty cluster will be recruited and charged with reviewing, refining, and operationalizing the modified components of the outcome.

3. Assessment tools aligned to the outcome will be identified and/or developed by the faculty cluster. 4. The assessment tool will then be administered as a pilot test during a subsequent assessment period. 5. Results will be analyzed and assessment tool revised and refined if necessary. 6. Steps 4 and 5 will be repeated until the tool has been validated.

B. Adding an outcome

1. A motion is made and a rationale provided by a residential faculty to add a college-wide outcome. The

motion must be seconded by another SOC member to initiate the process. 2. A discussion will take place and upon agreement by SOC members for this need, a proposal will be

drafted by the initiating member justifying the rationale for the need of the new outcome. 3. The proposal will be reviewed by the student outcomes resource committee and suggestions for revision

made if necessary. 4. The final proposal will be presented to SOC at the next meeting for approval. 5. The SOC Chair and/or Chair-elect will make a formal presentation of the proposal to Faculty Senate. 6. Upon support by Faculty Senate, an interdisciplinary team of faculty will then be recruited to discuss

the components of the outcome and design a matrix/survey that measures the degree to which faculty emphasize the proposed outcome in the courses of their respective discipline.

7. The survey/matrix will be sent college-wide to determine campus consensus. If consensus is reached a faculty cluster will be formed.

8. The faculty cluster will be charged with reviewing, refining, and operationalizing the components of the outcome.

9. Assessment tools aligned to the outcome will be identified and/or developed by the faculty cluster. 10. The assessment tool will then be administered as a pilot test during a subsequent assessment period. 11. Results will be analyzed and assessment tool revised and refined if necessary. 12. Steps 10 and 11 will be repeated until the tool has been validated.

C. Deleting an outcome

1. A motion is made and a rationale provided by a residential faculty to delete a college-wide outcome. The motion must be seconded by another SOC member to initiate the process.

2. Upon a consensus of SOC members for this need, a proposal will be drafted by the initiating member justifying the rationale for the need to delete the outcome.

3. The proposal will be reviewed by the student outcomes resource committee and suggestions for revision made if necessary.

4. The final proposal will be presented to SOC for approval. 5. College-wide consensus on the matter will then be determined electronically by the SOC Chair who

will send out an email to all residential faculty for comment about any concerns or objections. 6. Once college-wide consensus is determined, the SOC Chair and/or Chair-elect will make a formal

presentation of the proposal to Faculty Senate. 7. Upon support by Faculty Senate, the outcome will be deleted.

Student Outcomes Committee (SOC) A Faculty Senate Committee

Appendix D

Learning Outcomes and Assessment Measures as of AY 2010-2011

Appendix D: Learning Outcomes and Assessment Measures

Mesa, Arizona

Student Outcomes Assessment Program

Summary of Student Learning Outcomes and Assessment Measures Outcome Area Student Learning

Outcome Statements Description of Assessment Measure

Arts and Humanities

1. Demonstrate knowledge of human creations. 2. Demonstrate an awareness that different contexts and/or world views produce different human creations. 3.Demonstrate an understanding and awareness of the impact that a piece (artifact) has on the relationship and perspective of the audience. 4. Demonstrate an ability to evaluate human creations.

Faculty-developed: The measure consists of a series of visual, aural, and written stimuli representing different aspects of arts and humanities. Students view/hear/read the stimuli and respond to a series of open-ended questions requiring personal response to the work, critical evaluation of the work, or contextual interpretation of the work. Faculty blind-score responses using a scoring rubric.

Cultural Diversity

1. Identify and explain diverse cultural customs, beliefs, traditions, and lifestyles. 2. Identify and explain major cultural, historical and geographical issues that shape our perceptions. 3. Identify and explain social forces that can effect cultural change. 4. Identify biases, assumptions, and prejudices in multicultural interactions. 5. Identify ideologies, practices, and contributions that persons of diverse backgrounds bring to our multicultural world.

Adaptation of a student survey developed through University of Michigan Diverse Democracy Project.


1. Given a problem, define specific information needed to solve the problem or answer the question. 2. Locate appropriate and relevant information to match informational needs. 3. Identify and use appropriate print and/or electronic information sources. 4. Evaluate information for currency, relevancy, and reliability. 5. Use information effectively.

Faculty developed: Cluster members chose items from a district-developed item bank. In Part I, students respond to multiple choice items aligned with the outcomes. In Part II, students write a response to an article about the effects on marijuana, using information from the article to take a position. Faculty blind-score the open-ended response using a scoring rubric.

Global Awareness

1. Identify world economic and political systems, events, cultures, and geography. 2. Explain the impact of globalization on world societies and the natural environment. 3. Identify how historical events, perspectives, and cultures have shaped the nature of current global issues. 4. Analyze local, regional, and global implications of a current event. 5. Explain the impact of culture and experiences on one’s world view and behavior.

Faculty developed: Assessment consists of multiple choice and free-responses questions.

Appendix D: Learning Outcomes and Assessment Measures

Outcome Area Student Learning Outcome Statements

Description of Assessment Measure

Numeracy 1. Identify and extract relevant data from given mathematical situations. 2. Select known models or develop appropriate models that organize the data into tables or spreadsheets, graphical representations, symbolic/ equation format.

3. Obtain correct mathematical results and state those results with the qualifiers.

4. Use the results.

Faculty developed: Measure includes multiple choice items aligned with the four outcomes, including graphing and interpreting data and using given quantitative information to solve problems.

Oral Communication

1. Construct and deliver a clear, well-organized oral presentation. 2. Interact in a collaborative, synergistic manner within a small group problem solving meeting. 3. Maintain an interpersonally effective climate within a one to one dyadic interchange.

Faculty developed: Measure consists of multiple choice items designed to assess concepts and knowledge related to each of the outcomes.

Problem Solving/Critical

Thinking

1. Identify a problem or argument. 2. Isolate facts related to the problem. 3. Differentiate facts from opinions or emotional responses. 4. Ascertain the author’s conclusion. 5. Generate multiple solutions to the problem. 6. Predict consequences. 7. Use evidence or sound reasoning to justify a position.

Commercially produced: The Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal was selected by faculty as an appropriate measure of the problem solving/ critical thinking outcomes. It is a standardized measure that has been normed on a junior and two-year college population.

Scientific Inquiry

Demonstrate scientific inquiry skills related to: 1. Hypothesis 2. Prediction 3. Assumption 4. Interpretation 5. Evaluation

Faculty developed: Measure presents information about scientific problems; students respond to questions about the problems that are aligned with the outcome statements. The measure has undergone two substantial revisions based on previous three years of data analysis.

Workplace Skills

1. Ethics 2. Interpersonal skills 3. Critical thinking 4. Organization 5. Team work 6. Technology literacy 7. Personal and professional responsibility

A multiple choice test was developed from a work-place skills item bank developed by the state of Texas. Test has been administered for three years with appropriate modifications made based on analysis of results.

Written Communication

Write a clear, well-organized paper using documentation when appropriate.

Faculty developed: Students respond to a prompt requiring the development of an argumentative essay. Students have 90 minutes during which they prepare a rough draft and a final draft of a multi-paragraph essay. Faculty blind score the essays using a scoring rubric that includes ratings on several sub-skills.

Appendix E

Sample Assessment Week Materials for AY 2010-2011

Appendix E: Sample Assessment Week Materials


Information for Students WHAT WE’RE LEARNING ABOUT STUDENT LEARNING

Mesa Community College Student Outcomes Assessment Program

What is the MCC student assessment program?

Student outcomes assessment is a term used to describe measuring and documenting what MCC students are achieving overall in their studies at the college. Faculty members define the outcomes of college programs and develop measures to assess them. The program includes three primary assessment areas - general education, career and technical education, and developmental education.

What is assessed? For students pursuing their general education studies at the college, seven areas are assessed: Written and Oral Communication, Arts and Humanities, Cultural Diversity, Information Literacy, Scientific Inquiry, Numeracy, Problem Solving/Critical Thinking.

For students enrolled in a career or technical program, seven workplace skills are assessed: Ethics, Interpersonal Communication, Critical Thinking, Organization, Team Work, Technology Literacy, Personal and Professional Responsibilities.

Who is assessed?

For general education, the performance of groups of students who are beginning their general studies is compared to that of groups of students who are completing their general education. For career and technical programs, students who are beginning and completing specific programs leading to AAS degrees or certificates are assessed on their workplace skills.

What can students expect?

Students are asked to take one of the assessments during one class period. It is important for students to make an honest effort to complete the assessments to the best

of their ability so that the information collected is meaningful. Individual student scores are not reported, and a student’s grade or class standing is not

affected by his or her performance. Students are asked to provide background information so that the assessment data can be

analyzed to be sure that the students who participated are representative of the whole student population.

What do the results show?

The Mesa Community College Student Outcomes Assessment Program provides clear evidence of student learning at the college! Assessments are given in Information Literacy, Numeracy, Problem Solving, Scientific Inquiry, Oral communication, Written Communication, Cultural Diversity, Global Awareness, and Arts and Humanities. Students enrolled in Career and Technical programs participate in workplace skills assessment.


Tips for Faculty Giving Assessments Mesa Community College – Student Outcomes Assessment Program

Thank you for volunteering one or more of your class sections to give an assessment. It is this that helps make the work of our Student Outcomes Committee so successful. In the past a number of faculty have had questions about giving assessments. Their concerns typically fell into two categories:

Should we tell students about the assessment in advance and, if so, what do we tell them?

Should we offer some kind of incentive for their participation? SOC has no official or unofficial position on either of these questions. What occurs in the classroom is up to the individual faculty member, but to respond to concerns and perhaps give you some ideas, here are ways other teachers have approached assessment week. Preparing the Class:

Some faculty felt that if they told their class ahead of time that they would be taking an assessment on a particular day, students may not show up. Other faculty have talked to their class about it extensively and had everyone show up eager to be assessed! If you do want to talk with your students, you’ll need to decide if you want to do it during the same class period you’ll be giving the assessment (when they’ve shown up already) or prior to that. One consideration is that if you have a fifty minute class, you probably won’t have time to do both in the same day. If you have a longer class period and the assessment only takes fifty minutes, then you would have time. A handout is available which you can either copy and distribute to your class or use on your own to help guide a discussion.

Use of Incentives:

Again, this is entirely up to you. Last year approximately 60% of assessments were given with an incentive; 40% were not. For faculty who used an incentive, most often it took the form of a 10-point quiz grade or some other type of extra credit.

Here is one scenario that an instructor offered from her experience: I did not prepare them. Actually I did not tell them. On the

day of the assessment, I announced that we had a special project to do that day and that it was voluntary but...I then explained the purpose of assessment, how it was confidential and anonymous, and that if they did not want to do it they did not have to do it; however, if they stayed to complete the assessment (math) they would get 10 points added as extra credit. Everyone stayed.

In the end, we want to stress that the decision to discuss assessment with your classes ahead of time or offer an incentive is entirely up to you. If you try something new and you liked the results, please let us know and we’ll share it with others. A feedback form is enclosed with your assessment materials.


Mesa Community College Program to Assess Student Learning

• Our class has been selected to participate in a large-scale assessment of student learning outcomes at Mesa Community College.

• Your effort and cooperation in this activity are very important to understand what students are learning and help us make good decisions about programs at MCC.

• Your individual performance on the assessment will NOT be reported to anyone and will NOT affect your grades or standing at MCC in any way.

• Background information will only be used to verify that the students sampled represent the entire campus.


Assessment Week 2011 ‐ February 28 – March 4

Faculty Volunteers Needed

Our 15th Annual Assessment Week is scheduled for February 28 – March 4, 2011.

Assessment is faculty‐driven and faculty‐owned. You are key to the success of the student outcomes assessment program! Your on‐going support and cooperation are sincerely appreciated! Faculty volunteers are needed to ensure that assessment week is a success. Will you volunteer one or more class period(s) to administer an outcomes assessment during spring 2011 Assessment Week? Volunteers are needed for the following areas:

General Education Courses

Classes likely to contain high percentages of students who are just beginning their

general education courses (e.g., English 101, Psychology 101). Classes likely to contain high percentages of students who are nearing completion of

their general education courses (e.g., 200‐level courses in a discipline). To Volunteer: Contact your department’s SOC representative ________________________________ Questions? Please contact Tim Florschuetz ([email protected] / 1‐7515) or Betty Parisek ([email protected] / 1‐7108), co‐chairs of the Student Outcomes Committee. Information about assessment is also available at www.mesacc.edu/about/orp/assessment or from the Office of Research and Planning at 1‐7213.


ASSESSMENT WEEK 2011 CONFIRMATION Dear «Instructor», Thank you for volunteering to administer an assessment to one or more of your sections during Assessment Week 2011 (February 28 - March 4). Packets of assessment materials will be sent to your departments via campus mail the week of Feb. 14th. If you do not receive your materials by Friday, February 18, please contact Dennis Mitchell in the Office of Research and Planning at 1-7213 or [email protected]. PLEASE REVIEW THE INFORMATION BELOW. If the information is incorrect, or you are unable to administer assessments in these sections, immediately contact the research office. For general questions regarding the student outcomes assessment, you may contact one of the Student Outcomes Committee co-chairs: Tim Florschuetz ([email protected] / 1-7515) or Betty Parisek ([email protected] / 1-7108). Please administer the assessments during the week of February 28 – March 4, and return your completed assessments and other materials to the research office by Friday, March 11. Please visit our student outcomes assessment web page for more information such as an orientation video, an FAQ, and tips for faculty administering assessments. Your Assessment Week course(s) and section number(s): «Course», «Course_ID» «Course2», «CourseID2» «Course_3», «Courseid3»


ASSESSMENT SUBMITTAL FORM Please complete one form for each section and return one section per envelope. Send this form and the completed assessments in the envelope provided to the MCC Office of Research and Planning, Building #42. The requested information allows us to keep a log of returned assessments; data will not be analyzed by individual student or by section. Instructor’s Name __________________________________ Section # __________

1. Did you give any type of incentive (e.g., extra credit) to encourage the students to participate?

Yes □ No □ If yes, what type of incentive? ________________________________

2. How long did it take to administer the assessment? _____ minutes

3. What worked well for you in administering the assessment?

4. What suggestions do you have for improving the process for next year?

THANK YOU FOR SUPPORTING THE MCC STUDENT ASSESSMENT PROGRAM!

the mesa community college program to assess student learning · november 2011 . mesa community...

Documents